list_monitors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a safe, read-only enumeration and the field list hints at a lightweight return, but nothing states side effects, permissions, or ordering. For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free listing tool the omission is minor, so a 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; every token (including the field list) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-argument listing tool with a full output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it. Only the absence of explicit when-to-use routing against sibling list tools keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The parenthetical field list adds a little value about the response shape, though it is redundant with the output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource ('List available monitors') and it enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_windows and list_captures. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the monitors-vs-windows-vs-captures distinction is evident from the resource alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (discover monitors before calling capture_monitor), but the description never states when to reach for this versus list_windows or list_captures, nor any prerequisites. Adequate minimum-viable guidance with a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.